Login

Switch eShop free-to-play titles will not require a Switch Online membership

If you spend some of your time playing free-to-play games on Switch that have an online component, you've probably been worried about coughing up some cash to continue playing them when Nintendo launches their Switch Online service. Thankfully that doesn't appear to be the case.

If you take a look at various eShop listings, you'll find multiple paid titles that include the following info in their listings.

"From the full launch of the Nintendo Switch Online membership service in 2018, online play requires a paid membership."

The eShop listings for free-to-play games do not include that same line anywhere in their info. As of right now, the following titles will remain completely free once the Switch Online service launches.

- Paladins
- Fortnite
- Pokémon Quest
- Dawn of the Breakers
- Fallout Shelter
- Galak-Z: Variant S
- Zaccaria Pinball
- The Pinball Arcade
- Kitten Squad
- Pinball FX3

Thanks to Sligeach_eire for the heads up!

Categories: Top Stories, Consoles
Tags: eshop, switch

Comments

Top Rated Comment
lokamp
Wed Aug 01 18 01:40pm
Rating: 3

Still doesn't lessen the blow. The Online Tax is STILL a tax to play online.

Really? I would have made Paladins and Fartnite require an online subscription.

They don't require the subscription for the other platforms, so it would be dumb for Nintendo to do it.

They dont require a subscription on PS4 but they do on Xbox

On PlayStation and PC, you don't need a Subscription. However on the Xbox, I think you require an Xbox Live gold subscription to play Fortnite.

My friend has an xbox and plays Fornight a lot...mostly save the World, but played the other ,modes to play online with myself, but he doesnt have a xbox subscription that am aware of.

lokamp
Wed Aug 01 18 01:40pm
Rating: 3

Still doesn't lessen the blow. The Online Tax is STILL a tax to play online.

It's been this way on consoles for more than a decade now. Nintendo is actually very late to the party.

lokamp
Wed Aug 01 18 02:55pm
Rating: 1

Doesn't mean that this is a good thing for us to begin with, either.

There's a reason why I get the online-geared third-party titles I want for PC instead of their more common console counterparts...

It’s paying for a service. There are costs associated with providing an online service. Even though Nintendo provided an online service at no additional cost in the past doesn’t stop you from sounding entitled.

lokamp
Thu Aug 02 18 08:10am
Rating: 1 (Updated 3 times)

Sorry if I'm entitled to complain for something I used to get for free and not being forced to fork in 20 extra quids per year just to have the privilege to play online.

My bad, by your logic I should keep my yap shut and not be complaining on this because you don't feel the same on this topic. I mean, f*** others' opinions, amirite?

Thu Aug 02 18 03:38pm
Rating: 1 (Updated 1 time)

Sorry if I'm entitled to complain for something I used to get for free and not being forced to fork in 20 extra quids per year just to have the privilege to play online.

Yes that is textbook entitlement.

My bad, by your logic I should keep my yap shut and not be complaining on this because you don't feel the same on this topic.

If that’s what you gathered from my comment (or “logic”) then good luck to you.

Also do you not even see the irony in your statement? 😂

lokamp
Sat Aug 04 18 11:12am
(Updated 3 times)

What irony, me gathering that what you said to me earlier was something to the effect of "You have no rights to complain, since server-handling stuff isn't free for those who host" and then this master 'no u' retort of "you're entitled to your opinion, argument invalid"?

I wager that Nintendo will really love the extra money from people that will follow a line of thinking similar of yours... Again, I'll be sticking on PC for online multiplayer-y stuff.

There's a lot of games that should remain free to play as they don't cost companies a single penny for us to play online.

You’re trying to refer to P2P but failing to make a correct point.

There are still backend servers needed for P2P multiplayer connectivity. It’s not LAN gaming.

The backend servers do cost several penny’s, just not as much as a dedicated server model.

Out of the games listed aren't Paladins and Fortnite the only ones that are relevant?
I mean, of course Nintendo won't make you subscribe to their online service for something like Kitten Squad since it's local multiplayer only, or Pokemon Quest since it has no multiplayer at all.

Nintendo had the advantage for all of these years for keeping online gaming free. I strongly dislike the way things are going for them.

I'd argue one of Splatoon 1's best qualities and what keeps so many people hooked to it was the fact that it was free to play online, and had no microtransactions, in nowadays industry, those are rare qualities.

I'm not calling Octo Expansion a Microtransaction btw, and I'm glad Splatoon 2 doesn't have those things, but I can see the playerbase taking a huge hit once the online payment scheme hits Splatoon 2.

Honestly, I'd add splatoon 2 to this list if I were Nintendo, since so much of the game is online-centric, but then the whole "why even bother with a paid online service" argument crops up and it's all way above my IQ level.

I don't understand the issue. Nintendo is offering it for $20 A YEAR. Not per month, only $20 per year. Do you want to pay $60 like Live?

sligeach_eire
Thu Aug 02 18 05:28pm
Rating: 1 (Updated 2 times)

I think this is Nintendo's way of getting their foot in the door of charging for online. They know they've an awful reputation when it comes to online. They wouldn't get away with charging $60 a year. I believe they'll charge a lot more for it in a few years. It's the thin end of the wedge, mark my words, just wait and see.

Remember when Nintendo said they weren't interested in DLC, that they released their games fully complete. Or that they'd no interest whatsoever in the smart phone mobile games market. That changed very quickly. Look at MK8's cheap and excellent DLC, well it escalated very quickly from there. So many of their games now have DLC, some even at launch and the price has gone up too.

I'll start by saying that I agree, $20 is nothing. There are indie games on the eShop that cost more than that. I expect most people might need the $35 family plan, but that's cheap, too.

But really Nintendo can't get away with charging more than that, they're only giving us the bare minimum as far as features (30 year old NES games we've all played to death already compared to full retail games the other two companies offer) and not enough of Nintendo's games even support online to begin with (Kirby would've been perfect with online co-op, but as it is, it's a game I'll be waiting until I can pick it up for $30 or less).

Want to join this discussion?

You should like, totally log in or sign up!